I know that now that the NIE is telling many of you what you want to hear, you're satisfied and don't need to hear any more, but just in case anyone is still interested in dissenting opinions about intelligence, here a story about the British perspective:

British spy chiefs have grave doubts that Iran has mothballed its nuclear weapons programme, as a US intelligence report claimed last week, and believe the CIA has been hoodwinked by Teheran.

The timing of the CIA report has also provoked fury in the British Government, where officials believe it has undermined efforts to impose tough new sanctions on Iran and made an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities more likely.

The security services in London want concrete evidence to allay concerns that the Islamic state has fed disinformation to the CIA.

The report used new evidence - including human sources, wireless intercepts and evidence from an Iranian defector - to conclude that Teheran suspended the bomb-making side of its nuclear programme in 2003. But British intelligence is concerned that US spy chiefs were so determined to avoid giving President Bush a reason to go to war - as their reports on Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes did in Iraq - that they got it wrong this time.

A senior British official delivered a withering assessment of US intelligence-gathering abilities in the Middle East and revealed that British spies shared the concerns of Israeli defence chiefs that Iran was still pursuing nuclear weapons.

The source said British analysts believed that Iranian nuclear staff, knowing their phones were tapped, deliberately gave misinformation. "We are sceptical. We want to know what the basis of it is, where did it come from? Was it on the basis of the defector? Was it on the basis of the intercept material? They say things on the phone because they know we are up on the phones. They say black is white. They will say anything to throw us off.

"It's not as if the American intelligence agencies are regarded as brilliant performers in that region. They got badly burned over Iraq."

A US intelligence source has revealed that some American spies share the concerns of the British and the Israelis. "Many middle- ranking CIA veterans believe Iran is still committed to producing nuclear weapons and are concerned that the agency lost a number of its best sources in Iran in 2004," the official said.

The Foreign Office is studying a new text of a third United Nations Security Council resolution that would impose tough travel bans on regime figures and penalise banks that do business with Iran.

But diplomats say the chances of winning Chinese and Russian support for the move are in freefall. A Western diplomat said: "It's created a lot of difficulties because of the timing, just as we were about to go for a third resolution."

Bruce Reidel, who spent 25 years on the Middle East desks at the CIA and the National Security Council, said: "By going public they have embarrassed our friends, particularly the British and the Israelis. They have given our foes insights into our most secret intelligence and taken most of the options off the table."

Ephraim Sneh, until recently Israel's deputy minister of defence, warned that military action would be the only option if the world community did not institute robust sanctions. "No one can rule out with high confidence that somewhere in Iran, 70 times the size of Israel, there is one lab working on the weapons programme," Mr Sneh told The Sunday Telegraph.

"[Military action] is not a desired option; it is a last resort. That's why sanctions are so important. We have to urge the international community to be serious about sanctions and to take necessary measures to defend the civilian population."

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 10:24 AM

I lost interest in the British perspective back when they proved too proud to admit error in the Niger fiasco.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 10:26 AM

I lost interest in the British perspective back when they proved too proud to admit error in the Niger fiasco.

Is your belief that they were in error on Niger based on the world renowned Nightwish intelligence service? :spock:

BucEyedPea

12-10-2007, 10:48 AM

I know that now that the NIE is telling many of you what you want to hear, you're satisfied and don't need to hear any more, but just in case anyone is still interested in dissenting opinions about intelligence, here a story about the British perspective:

Why isn't it that you have these people telling you what you want to hear...hmmm? The NC's have their guys planted within the media and their allies in GB. The NIE report is consistent, mostly, with what other intel experts have claimed earlier...who even say Iran never had a nuclear weapons program.

This article is a case of assertion with little evidence and generalities.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 11:01 AM

Why isn't it that you have these people telling you what you want to hear...hmmm? The NC's have their guys planted within the media and their allies in GB. The NIE report is consistent, mostly, with what other intel experts have claimed earlier...who even say Iran never had a nuclear weapons program.

This article is a case of assertion with little evidence and generalities.

From our POV, the NIE is nothing more than assertion with little evidence and generalities. Unless you have access to the actual intelligence that's all you're ever going to have. The only thing we can do is speculate on how reliable the assertion is.

And as for your first question, I can only say that I'm not the one who thought he was lied to by the pre-Iraq intelligence, you are. I recognize that intelligence is guesswork and that there are almost always competing views based on conflicting evidence. The people who were "lied to" are the suckers who take the top level assessments at face value. Don't get suckered again by believing that your "sources" have the bedrock truth instead of a political agenda.

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 12:23 PM

Is your belief that they were in error on Niger based on the world renowned Nightwish intelligence service? :spock:
No, my belief is based on the fact that the only information with which they were forthcoming on the Niger allegation was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be fraudulent, and that although they've continually handwaved about "other sources," they've not been forthcoming with any of them. Basically, everyone on the face of the earth, except you and a few overly prideful Brits have realized the error and that the reason these phantom "other sources" have not been produced is because there aren't any.

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 12:27 PM

From our POV, the NIE is nothing more than assertion with little evidence and generalities. Unless you have access to the actual intelligence that's all you're ever going to have. The only thing we can do is speculate on how reliable the assertion is.
Weren't you among those trumpeting the NIE back when it seemed to support the idea (or at least didn't refute the idea) that Saddam was still in possession of wmd's? So what we are hearing, then, is that the NIE is good and reliable when it is saying what you want to hear, but "nothing more than assertion with little evidence and generalities" when it isn't. Understood.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 12:44 PM

No, my belief is based on the fact that the only information with which they were forthcoming on the Niger allegation was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be fraudulent, and that although they've continually handwaved about "other sources," they've not been forthcoming with any of them. Basically, everyone on the face of the earth, except you and a few overly prideful Brits have realized the error and that the reason these phantom "other sources" have not been produced is because there aren't any.

The vast majority of underlying intelligence for these conclusions is never released (or at least not released until it becomes nothing more than historical trivia). In fact, the vast majority of the conclusions are never released. Why you think Britain should reveal their sources and methods just to convince you that they have good reason to believe what they believe is beyond me.

In other words, your belief is based on your personal preference not any solid logic. I don't know whether the Brits were right about Niger or not, but the facts that they haven't backed off (as far as I'm aware) and that their own version of an intelligence investigation found the conclusion "well founded" lead me not to dismiss it as easily as you have.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 12:49 PM

Weren't you among those trumpeting the NIE back when it seemed to support the idea (or at least didn't refute the idea) that Saddam was still in possession of wmd's? So what we are hearing, then, is that the NIE is good and reliable when it is saying what you want to hear, but "nothing more than assertion with little evidence and generalities" when it isn't. Understood.

It's apparent that you don't really understand at all. The fact that the 2002 NIE said what it said is justification for the President's good faith belief and stands in opposition to the charges that the Bush administration lied us into war on the basis of false charges of WMD. That's what I've trumpeted. I've never tried to claim that the conclusions of that NIE were a certainty. My view of intelligence products remains consistent.

One difference between that NIE and the present one though is that in 2002, the intelligence services of our allies and the interpretations of both Republican and democrat administrations were all aligned while, as the OP article points out, the 2007 NIE is disputed by at least two of our best and most capable allies.

StcChief

12-10-2007, 12:56 PM

Content to wait for the Nuclear glow....for solid proof.

Peace in our time /Chamberlain

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 01:07 PM

The vast majority of underlying intelligence for these conclusions is never released (or at least not released until it becomes nothing more than historical trivia). In fact, the vast majority of the conclusions are never released. Why you think Britain should reveal their sources and methods just to convince you that they have good reason to believe what they believe is beyond me.Makes it awfully convenient for such handwaving, doesn't it? Not only did they not release it to the public, but when the US government asked them to share it, they wouldn't even release it to them. There may be good reason to withhold it from the public, but no good reason to withhold it from the official intelligence sources in the government with whom you've agreed to share such intelligence. The only good reason to withhold it from our own intelligence community is that it doesn't exist.I don't know whether the Brits were right about Niger or not, but the facts that they haven't backed off (as far as I'm aware) and that their own version of an intelligence investigation found the conclusion "well founded" lead me not to dismiss it as easily as you have.We've been through this before. Outside of the Brits themselves (and you), the findings of their own version of an intelligence investigation were anything but "well-founded." They were criticized by US intelligence as shoddy and questionable, and the leap in logic that found the story was well-founded, was based largely on the fact that uranium is one of Niger's major exports (as opposed to being based on actual documention, observation or recounting of the goings on of the meeting between the Niger and Iraq delegations). Using their logic, if an Iraqi delegation went to Japan, it must have been to purchase DVD players.

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 01:10 PM

One difference between that NIE and the present one though is that in 2002, the estimate served the interests of the intelligence services of our allies and the interpretations of both Republican and democrat administrations were all aligned while, as the OP article points out, the 2007 NIE is disputed by two of our allies with the most vested interest and strongest incentives to oppose Iran.
FYP

BucEyedPea

12-10-2007, 01:15 PM

Content to wait for the Nuclear glow....for solid proof.

Peace in our time /Chamberlain
This is not the same thing as WWII. That's stimulus response like a Pavlovian dog whereby all are the exact same incidents when they differ. If you note the agressor is not Iran it was AQ. Geez! Where's the logic?

Adept Havelock

12-10-2007, 01:17 PM

Content to wait for the Nuclear glow....for solid proof.

Peace in our time /Chamberlain

Kill them all, God will know his own. /Arnaud

Radar Chief

12-10-2007, 01:23 PM

Makes it awfully convenient for such handwaving, doesn't it? Not only did they not release it to the public, but when the US government asked them to share it, they wouldn't even release it to them. There may be good reason to withhold it from the public, but no good reason to withhold it from the official intelligence sources in the government with whom you've agreed to share such intelligence. The only good reason to withhold it from our own intelligence community is that it doesn't exist.We've been through this before. Outside of the Brits themselves (and you), the findings of their own version of an intelligence investigation were anything but "well-founded." They were criticized by US intelligence as shoddy and questionable, and the leap in logic that found the story was well-founded, was based largely on the fact that uranium is one of Niger's major exports (as opposed to being based on actual documention, observation or recounting of the goings on of the meeting between the Niger and Iraq delegations). Using their logic, if an Iraqi delegation went to Japan, it must have been to purchase DVD players.

Depends. Did they get their first 500 tons of “DVD players” from Japan?

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 01:25 PM

This is not the same thing as WWII. That's stimulus response like a Pavlovian dog whereby all are the exact same incidents when they differ. If you note the agressor is not Iran it was AQ. Geez! Where's the logic?It's based on a mindset that subscribes to the myth that Muslims want to control the world, to force Islam upon the planet, and destroy all non-believers (whether in Muslim lands or not), and that if any Muslim power develops nuclear capabilities, they will eventually launch against us. It's only a matter of time before they start chanting for us to make war on Pakistan (whose allegiance to the US is shaky at best), which has nuclear capabily. The fear runs deep in these people. Probably the only thing keeping them from already pushing for war against Pakastan is the fact that they do have a confirmed nuclear program, and that makes people take a step a step back.

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 01:31 PM

Depends. Did they get their first 500 tons of “DVD players” from Japan?
Is yellow cake uranium the only thing Iraq has ever dealt for with Niger? For that matter, is weapons-grade uranium the only purpose to which Iraq has ever processed yellow cake? I know the answer to the second question is no. What's the answer to the first?

Radar Chief

12-10-2007, 01:45 PM

Is yellow cake uranium the only thing Iraq has ever dealt for with Niger? For that matter, is weapons-grade uranium the only purpose to which Iraq has ever processed yellow cake? I know the answer to the second question is no. What's the answer to the first?

Well, since uranium is one of the few exports Niger produces Prime Minister Mayaki thought it reasonable to assume the Iraqi delegation that wanted to talk about “expanding commercial relations” were looking to buy uranium. :shrug:

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 02:08 PM

Well, since uranium is one of the few exports Niger produces Prime Minister Mayaki thought it reasonable to assume the Iraqi delegation that wanted to talk about “expanding commercial relations” were looking to buy uranium. :shrug:Mayaki didn't say that. The CIA analysts who wrote the later report said that. Mayaki said that there wasn't any discussion of uranium, or trade of any sort. The impression I get from accounts of the meeting is that it was kept pretty short, trade was not discussed, and the Iraqis never mentioned if there were any specific trade goods they were interested in. What they specifically sought, if anything specific, will forever remain in the realm of conjecture. IMO, since they already had existing commercial relations wrt yellow cake uranium, it would be odd to phrase the interest in renewing those relations as "expanding commercial relations." It would make sense to say "renewing commercial relations," or "continuing commercial relations," but "expanding" usually means "we want something else." It would be just as reasonable to assume that they were interested in buying food exports, as Niger also exports large quantities of livestock and vegetables, especially since Iraq's food supply, by this time, was devastated by the economic sanctions.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 02:10 PM

Makes it awfully convenient for such handwaving, doesn't it? Not only did they not release it to the public, but when the US government asked them to share it, they wouldn't even release it to them. There may be good reason to withhold it from the public, but no good reason to withhold it from the official intelligence sources in the government with whom you've agreed to share such intelligence. The only good reason to withhold it from our own intelligence community is that it doesn't exist.We've been through this before. Outside of the Brits themselves (and you), the findings of their own version of an intelligence investigation were anything but "well-founded." They were criticized by US intelligence as shoddy and questionable, and the leap in logic that found the story was well-founded, was based largely on the fact that uranium is one of Niger's major exports (as opposed to being based on actual documention, observation or recounting of the goings on of the meeting between the Niger and Iraq delegations). Using their logic, if an Iraqi delegation went to Japan, it must have been to purchase DVD players.

As opposed to the handwaving you are doing without any basis whatsoever? One incredibly good reason to withhold intelligence from our government, if indeed we even asked for it as you say we did, is the track record we have of major leak after major leak.

You have no idea of what the basis for finding the assessment "well founded" was. The Butler report indicates that it was based on multiple sources and wasn't dependent on the forged invoice, but doesn't elaborate beyond that. Since you have nothing to add to your skepticism about the British assessment I don't see any point going on with that argument.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 02:12 PM

Mayaki didn't say that. The CIA analysts who wrote the later report said that. Mayaki said that there wasn't any discussion of uranium, or trade of any sort. The impression I get from accounts of the meeting is that it was kept pretty short, trade was not discussed, and the Iraqis never mentioned if there were any specific trade goods they were interested in. What they specifically sought, if anything specific, will forever remain in the realm of conjecture. IMO, since they already had existing commercial relations wrt yellow cake uranium, it would be odd to phrase the interest in renewing those relations as "expanding commercial relations." It would make sense to say "renewing commercial relations," or "continuing commercial relations," but "expanding" usually means "we want something else."

:spock: Or we want "more of it". Your ability to misinterpret the English language with self-reassuring certainty remains unrivaled.

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 02:17 PM

As opposed to the handwaving you are doing without any basis whatsoever? One incredibly good reason to withhold intelligence from our government, if indeed we even asked for it as you say we did, is the track record we have of major leak after major leak.
This pattern of constant leaks from within the intelligence community didn't start happening with regularity until quite some time later.

You have no idea of what the basis for finding the assessment "well founded" was.
Sure I do, it says it right there in the report. They allege multiple sources, but offer no further elaboration. Then they say that because uranium makes up 75% of Niger's exports (which is incorrect, by the way, it's only 65%), it was deemed credible. They didn't say it was deemed credible because there was documentation, or because there was any knowledge of what was actually discussed (indeed, Niger's Prime Minister Mayaki insisted that uranium was never brought up), but because uranium is Niger's largest single export.

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 02:18 PM

Your ability to misinterpret the English language with self-reassuring certainty remains unrivaled.Your pattern of trying to poison the well to discourage dissenting opinions with pre-emptive ad hominem is, indeed, unrivaled. And by the way, right back atcha with the precise ad hominem you chose. Works both ways, podhuh.

BucEyedPea

12-10-2007, 02:27 PM

Your pattern of trying to poison the well to discourage dissenting opinions with pre-emptive ad hominem is, indeed, unrivaled. And by the way, right back atcha with the precise ad hominem you chose. Works both ways, podhuh.
:thumb: rep!

patteeu

12-10-2007, 02:35 PM

This pattern of constant leaks from within the intelligence community didn't start happening with regularity until quite some time later.

Sure I do, it says it right there in the report. They allege multiple sources, but offer no further elaboration. Then they say that because uranium makes up 75% of Niger's exports (which is incorrect, by the way, it's only 65%), it was deemed credible. They didn't say it was deemed credible because there was documentation, or because there was any knowledge of what was actually discussed (indeed, Niger's Prime Minister Mayaki insisted that uranium was never brought up), but because uranium is Niger's largest single export.

I'll take their informed assessment over your blind one any day.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 02:36 PM

Your pattern of trying to poison the well to discourage dissenting opinions with pre-emptive ad hominem is, indeed, unrivaled. And by the way, right back atcha with the precise ad hominem you chose. Works both ways, podhuh.

Except that it isn't applicable to me. I haven't misinterpreted a simple English language expression the way you frequently do and, in fact, the way you just did. :shrug:

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 02:41 PM

I'll take their unsupported assertions over your doubt any day.
FYP

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 02:44 PM

Except that it isn't applicable to me. I haven't misinterpreted a simple English language expression the way you frequently do and, in fact, the way you just did. :shrug:
See, this is what I find so humorous about you. You truly don't recognize when things work both ways. You honestly believe your opinion on a matter as highly interpretive as this (indeed, even Mayaki admitted being unsure of what they wanted) should stand as objective and authoritative! But for you, it doesn't mean what you think it means because there is no other reasonable explanation; rather, it means what you think it means because that's what you want it to mean. I've offered a very reasonable counterassumption in an earlier post. I challenge you to discredit it.

Radar Chief

12-10-2007, 02:46 PM

Mayaki didn't say that. The CIA analysts who wrote the later report said that.

I’ve seen Mayaki quoted several times saying exactly what I just posted to you.

Mayaki said that there wasn't any discussion of uranium, or trade of any sort.

Ah, that’s the problem, I didn’t post that. I posted that Mayaki assumed they wanted to talk about uranium not that they had.

The impression I get….

And I stopped right there. I’m pretty sure my opinion would carry just as much weight with you as yours does with me, so I didn’t bother.

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 02:50 PM

I’ve seen Mayaki quoted several times saying exactly what I just posted to you.Probably misquotes, based on the CIA report, rather than actual quotings of the real words of Mayaki. Happens all the time. Ah, that’s the problem, I didn’t post that. I posted that Mayaki assumed they wanted to talk about uranium not that they had.Except that Mayaki didn't explicitly say that, not from any primary source that I've seen. If you can show a primary source that directly quotes Mayaki saying that, I'll reassess my opinion that point, not that it matters much, because he's still on record saying that he didn't actually know what they wanted, because it was never brought up.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 03:43 PM

See, this is what I find so humorous about you. You truly don't recognize when things work both ways. You honestly believe your opinion on a matter as highly interpretive as this (indeed, even Mayaki admitted being unsure of what they wanted) should stand as objective and authoritative! But for you, it doesn't mean what you think it means because there is no other reasonable explanation; rather, it means what you think it means because that's what you want it to mean. I've offered a very reasonable counterassumption in an earlier post. I challenge you to discredit it.

I gave my reason for siding with the British over you in post #25. The British know what their evidence is and both the intelligence service and the independent investigation of the Butler committee stand by the conclusion (or at least consider it "well founded"). You, OTOH, have nothing to go on but doubt.

As for whether things go both ways, your interpretation of the phrase "expanding commercial relations" is clearly flawed. You can't point to a similar English language interpretation problem on my part. At least not in this thread.

mlyonsd

12-10-2007, 06:51 PM

What? The British don't totally agree with American intelligience on Iran? When American intelligience was so sure Saddam had WMD?

Too funny.

BTW I'd like someone to post some proof that Bush is willing to open up a war with Iran before he leaves office.

Taco John

12-10-2007, 07:55 PM

BTW I'd like someone to post some proof that Bush is willing to open up a war with Iran before he leaves office.

I'd love how the warmongers on this board completely lack any sense of logic.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 08:10 PM

I'd love how the warmongers on this board completely lack any sense of logic.

Why do you say that? mlyonsd's post wasn't logically flawed. Several posters have expressed confidence that Bush is ready to bomb Iran. If their confidence is based on leaked Pentagon planning documents or Presidential directives, they could post those documents. If they don't really have anything to warrant their confidence as I suspect then they can simply admit it. We already know that BucEyedPea's confidence comes from "her sources" including former intelligence operatives who tell her what she wants to hear so I'm really talking about the rest of the "bombed if you do, bombed if you don't" crowd. :p

Taco John

12-10-2007, 08:27 PM

I guess that I'd like to see someone prove that he doesn't want to bomb Iran, then.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 08:43 PM

I guess that I'd like to see someone prove that he doesn't want to bomb Iran, then.

Ironic.

Taco John

12-10-2007, 08:54 PM

totally....

go bo

12-10-2007, 09:07 PM

What? The British don't totally agree with American intelligence on Iran? When American intelligence was so sure Saddam had WMD?

Too funny.

BTW I'd like someone to post some proof that Bush is willing to open up a war with Iran before he leaves office.my wife's third cousin's great grandmother's step-nephew is a psychic and he says that the president has already begun preparations for a military campaign against iran and then pakistan...

rumor has it that after we occupy iran and pakistan we're gonna try to get some boy scout troops to maintain order in iraq...

and the psychic also says that there are no people living in s.dak. other than native americans...

ergo, you must be canadian... :D :D :D

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 10:07 PM

As for whether things go both ways, your interpretation of the phrase "expanding commercial relations" is clearly flawed.No, it isn't "clearly flawed." What it is is different from your interpretation. If you think "different from your interpretation" is equal to "clearly flawed," then not only do you prove my contention that you can't separate your opinion from objective fact, but it's no wonder you have such difficulty understanding viewpoints that vary from your own. You really should seek help.
You can't point to a similar English language interpretation problem on my part. At least not in this thread.Incorrect. The "problem," as you characterize it, is that the phrase is highly interpretive. Even the Prime Minister of Niger admitted to not knowing what they meant. But you would have us believe that you and you alone have that magical insight into their brains to know, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that by "expanding commercial relations," they clearly, inarguably meant what you want them to have meant, that they were seeking "more yellow cake uranium," despite nobody having said a word about uranium. Given your inability to distinguish between your own opinion and fact, it is no wonder that you can't comprehend how your own admonishment applies to you.

I think it is also noteworthy that you haven't attempted to discredit the possible purpose for their visit that I provided in post #19. If you don't have the energy to search back that far, I'll reiterate it for you - aside from uranium, Niger also exports large quantities of livestock and produce. Given that Iraq's food supply was devastated by the economic sanctions, and starvation was a serious problem in Iraq at about the time of that visit, it is also very reasonable to assume that they sought to expand their trade relationship to include food.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 10:37 PM

No, it isn't "clearly flawed." What it is is different from your interpretation. If you think "different from your interpretation" is equal to "clearly flawed," then not only do you prove my contention that you can't separate your opinion from objective fact, but it's no wonder you have such difficulty understanding viewpoints that vary from your own. You really should seek help.

You limited the possible meanings of that phrase to the options you presented. I presented an additional option which is well within the common meaning of those words. You may not understand that, but it's a fact not an opinion.

Incorrect. The "problem," as you characterize it, is that the phrase is highly interpretive. Even the Prime Minister of Niger admitted to not knowing what they meant. But you would have us believe that you and you alone have that magical insight into their brains to know, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that by "expanding commercial relations," they clearly, inarguably meant what you want them to have meant, that they were seeking "more yellow cake uranium," despite nobody having said a word about uranium. Given your inability to distinguish between your own opinion and fact, it is no wonder that you can't comprehend how your own admonishment applies to you.

Nope, wrong again. I didn't take a position on what the phrase meant, I just proved that what you said it had to mean was wrong by pointing out that there was a possible meaning you'd neglected.

I think it is also noteworthy that you haven't attempted to discredit the possible purpose for their visit that I provided in post #19. If you don't have the energy to search back that far, I'll reiterate it for you - aside from uranium, Niger also exports large quantities of livestock and produce. Given that Iraq's food supply was devastated by the economic sanctions, and starvation was a serious problem in Iraq at about the time of that visit, it is also very reasonable to assume that they sought to expand their trade relationship to include food.

Why would that be noteworthy? My argument with you in this thread is that the British are in a far better position to know how "well founded" their assessment regarding Niger uranium was than you are. My only involvement in the Mayaki aspect of this thread was to prove that your interpretation of "expanding commercial relations" was flawed.

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 10:52 PM

You limited the possible meanings of that phrase to the options you presented. I presented an additional option which is well within the common meaning of those words. You may not understand that, but it's a fact not an opinion.
Ah, I see your problem. You must not have read my post closely enough. Either that, or you willfully ignored where I said "usually." However, when you claimed that I had "misinterpreted" the phrase, you took your suggestion out of the realm of "additional options," and by default took the position that the possible meanings I offered were incorrect, leaving only the option that they were seeking more uranium.

I didn't take a position on what the phrase meant,
No, in fact you did. See above.

I just proved that what you said it had to mean was wrong by pointing out that there was a possible meaning you'd neglected.
Except that I hadn't said that it "had to mean" one of those things. I said that in common usage, it usually means one of those things, and that it seemed odd to use that turn phrase in the sense in which you believe it was meant, when other phrasings would have represented that concept much better. Again, your mistake.

My only involvement in the Mayaki aspect of this thread was to prove that your interpretation of "expanding commercial relations" was flawed.
Which you've failed to accomplish.

patteeu

12-10-2007, 10:57 PM

Ah, I see your problem. You must not have read my post closely enough. Either that, or you willfully ignored where I said "usually." However, when you claimed that I had "misinterpreted" the phrase, you took your suggestion out of the realm of "additional options," and by default took the position that the possible meanings I offered were incorrect, leaving only the option that they were seeking more uranium.

No, in fact you did. See above.

Except that I hadn't said that it "had to mean" one of those things. I said that in common usage, it usually means one of those things, and that it seemed odd to use that turn phrase in the sense in which you believe it was meant, when other phrasings would have represented that concept much better. Again, your mistake.

Which you've failed to accomplish.

On the narrow point of whether you said "usually" or not, you're right and I'm wrong. You did say "usually". I don't know why you think it "usually" means what you say it means, but if you have data to support your contention I'd be willing to look at it. Short of that, my opinion is that you're wrong on that point.

The rest of what you say is bunk. I stand by my conclusion that you have a contentious relationship with the English language.

Nightwish

12-10-2007, 11:31 PM

On the narrow point of whether you said "usually" or not, you're right and I'm wrong. You did say "usually". I don't know why you think it "usually" means what you say it means, but if you have data to support your contention I'd be willing to look at it. Short of that, my opinion is that you're wrong on that point.
You're free to believe that if you wish. You're wrong, but you're free to believe it. Ain't this a great country?

The rest of what you say is bunk. I stand by my conclusion that you have a contentious relationship with the English language.
If that's what you need to tell yourself to rationalize your shortcomings, feel free.

By the way, to the list of things you've failed to accomplish, let's add this one - explain why the British would deem it "well founded" to assume that the Iraqi delegation was seeking to buy more uranium when they sent their delegation to Niger, when anyone with a working knowledge of Niger's import/export trade would have known they would need to visit with France, who controlled Niger's uranium exports, not anyone in Niger.

wazu

12-11-2007, 12:13 AM

I don't think the NIE report is flawless or all the groundbreaking. I just have never been interested in whether or not Iran goes nuclear. Sounds more like a problem for Israel to worry about to me. Our national defense budget should go to defending our borders and our coasts. We have to be insane to think we can afford to let any and everybody just walk across our border as they please, then turn around and worry about some third world country on the complete opposite side of the planet with no ability to launch an ICBM.

Radar Chief

12-11-2007, 08:01 AM

Probably misquotes, based on the CIA report, rather than actual quotings of the real words of Mayaki. Happens all the time. Except that Mayaki didn't explicitly say that, not from any primary source that I've seen. If you can show a primary source that directly quotes Mayaki saying that, I'll reassess my opinion that point, not that it matters much, because he's still on record saying that he didn't actually know what they wanted, because it was never brought up.

I realize this isn’t saying what you want to believe so you’ll probably attempt to demagogue the source, but I’ve read a few interviews of Mayaki and he’s never run from these words the way you are.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

And this has been a mostly uninteresting deflection from the point that Iraq got its first 500 tons of uranium from Niger. Something you’ve claimed impossible in the past.

Nightwish

12-11-2007, 09:45 AM

I realize this isn’t saying what you want to believe so you’ll probably attempt to demagogue the source, but I’ve read a few interviews of Mayaki and he’s never run from these words the way you are.The part you quoted, as usual, does not actually quote Mayaki making that explicit interpretation, it's an author's assertion. Thus far, I haven't seen a single source that actually quotes Mayaki explicitly claiming that interpretation. And if you've "read a few interviews of Mayaki, and he's never run from those words," then you should be able to do better than just posting a journalist's assertion. And you're still left with the problem of Niger not controlling its uranium exports. If one wanted to buy uranium from Niger at that time, one would talk to France, not Niger. No doubt the Iraqis would have known this. The fact that the Butler commission didn't know this is telling. And this has been a mostly uninteresting deflection from the point that Iraq got its first 500 tons of uranium from Niger. Something you’ve claimed impossible in the past.I think you have me confused with someone else, as I've never said anything remotely similar to that. What they've bought in the past is irrelevant, as everyone is well aware that the Iraqis had a wmd program, as well as nuclear ambitions at one time. We know, because we have the receipts.

BucEyedPea

12-11-2007, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Radar Chief
I realize this isn’t saying what you want to believe so you’ll probably attempt to demagogue the source,...
Projecting again. This is a broken record for sure. The same lines for anyone who disagrees.

Radar Chief

12-11-2007, 09:55 AM

Spin, squiggle, deflection per usual.

FYP

And I wonder why you haven’t posted Mayaki’s denial of that quote? :hmmm:

Radar Chief

12-11-2007, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Projecting again. This is a broken record for sure. The same lines for anyone who disagrees.

:LOL: I’m surprised you didn’t just call me a NeoCon. :shrug:

Chief Henry

12-11-2007, 10:06 AM

I'd love how the warmongers on this board completely lack any sense of logic.

What lacks the sense of logic, is pacifist sticking there head in the sand
when it comes to nutjobs in the middle east.

Nightwish

12-11-2007, 10:11 AM

Spin, squiggle, deflection per usual.ROFL

Are you familiar with the words "pot" and "kettle?" You should know how hilarious it is when the reigning king of deflection accuses others of his own favorite tactic.
And I wonder why you haven’t posted Mayaki’s denial of that quote? :hmmm:Possibly because nobody has yet posted an actual quote for him to deny. Do you plan on posting the actual quote from Mayaki anytime before Christmas?

Incidentally, I shouldn't have been surprised to find out you were wrong about the "first 500 tons" bit. First of all, it was just over 400 tons, and only a portion of it came from Niger, the rest came from Portugal. And did you intentionally leave out that it happened over a period between 1980 and 1982? Were you hoping we'd believe that it happened only a short time before the meeting in 1999?

Radar Chief

12-11-2007, 10:19 AM

ROFL

Are you familiar with the words "pot" and "kettle?" You should know how hilarious it is when the reigning king of deflection accuses others of his own favorite tactic.
Possibly because nobody has yet posted an actual quote for him to deny. Do you plan on posting the actual quote from Mayaki anytime before Christmas?

This obsession with me is a bit disturbing. Think you could actually, I don’t know, post some relevant facts that dispute previous statements? I know that’s a stretch for you, but give it a shot, mkay.

Incidentally, I shouldn't have been surprised to find out you were wrong about the "first 500 tons" bit. First of all, it was just over 400 tons, and only a portion of it came from Niger, the rest came from Portugal. And did you intentionally leave out that it happened over a period between 1980 and 1982? Were you hoping we'd believe that it happened only a short time before the meeting in 1999?

Link? And again, why the obsession with me? Afraid to let the facts speak for themselves?

Nightwish

12-11-2007, 11:07 AM

This obsession with me is a bit disturbing. Think you could actually, I don’t know, post some relevant facts that dispute previous statements?
I have posted relevant facts. I've posted the relevant fact that Mayaki has not been recorded making the explicit interpretation that you say he's made. I've pointed out the relevant fact that although you claim to have read numerous interviews with him, you've failed to post even one in which he makes such an interpretation. I've posted the relevant fact that at the time this meeting took place, France controlled Niger's uranium exports, thus it would be they, not Niger, who one would seek to strike a trade deal for uranium or uranium oxide. I've posted the relevant fact that the reports that Mayaki interpreted the phrase to mean "yellowcake sales" derive from a CIA analysis, not from from any recorded quotes from the man himself. I'm not disputing that he might have interpreted it that way, I'm just pointing that you've got a long way to go to prove that he did interpret it that way, and that if he interpreted it that way, that his interpretation was accurate. You've yet to do anything but duck and run from those facts. I realize that those relevant facts are inconvenient facts to you, but there they are. Do with them as you will. I suspect that you will continue to duck and run from them, because that's been your pattern so far. Please prove me wrong on that count.

Total of 486 tons, including both yellowcake and other forms of uranium and uranium dioxide (okay, closer to 500 than 400), 55% of which came from Portugal, and 37% of which came from Niger (the rest was from Italy and Brazil).

And again, why the obsession with me?
Are we getting a bit thin-skinned in our old age?

Radar Chief

12-11-2007, 12:08 PM

I have posted relevant facts.

No, you’ve posted your doubts. That’s it. I realize that in order to maintain your predisposed opinion you have to elevate your opinion to “fact” but that doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to follow suit.

Total of 486 tons, including both yellowcake and other forms of uranium and uranium dioxide (okay, closer to 500 than 400), 55% of which came from Portugal, and 37% of which came from Niger (the rest was from Italy and Brazil).

According to the IAEA, there was a bit more than just that at al Tuwaitha.

And if you’d pay a bit of attention you’d know that besides the “approximately” 500 Tons of yellow cake, there were 1.8 tons of enriched uranium besides the HEU obtained from Russia and France.

Are we getting a bit thin-skinned in our old age?

Again this obsession with me. I realize its your M.O. to try turning everything into a huge overly emotional confrontation, but why are you so afraid to let the facts speak for themselves?
What’s next, comments about the size of my junk? Insinuations about my married life?

Nightwish

12-11-2007, 12:23 PM

No, you’ve posted your doubts. That’s it. I realize that in order to maintain your predisposed opinion you have to elevate your opinion to “fact” but that doesn’t mean the rest of us are going to follow suit.
Projecting again, I see. The only one elevating opinion to fact is you. It is fact, not opinion, that you have not posted one single quote from Mayaki where he made the claim that he believed the purpose of the visit was to discuss yellow cake sales. It is fact, not opinion, that you have failed to link to even one primary source to support your opinion that this was his interpretation. It is fact, not opinion, that if he did indeed interpret the phrase as meaning that they wanted to discuss yellow cake sales, it does not automatically follow that he was correct in that assumption. It is fact, not opinion, that Mayaki is on record stating that he does not know precisely what they sought, and that uranium and yellow cake were never discussed. It is fact, not opinion, that the majority of the yellow cake previously purchased by Iraq came from Portugal, not Niger (contrary to your now-debunked assertion that Iraq bought it's first 500 tons from Niger). It is fact, not opinion, that those sales occurred more than 25 years ago, not in recent times, and certainly not contemporary to the 1999 meeting with the Iraqi delegation. None of these are opinion, these are all facts. You can deny it until you're blue in the face, you can continue to spin in your fantasy world, you can continue to duck and run from addressing any of those facts, because they are obviously very inconvenient for you, but try as you may, you cannot reduce them to mere opinions.

According to the IAEA, there was a bit more than just that at al Tuwaitha.

http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html

And if you’d pay a bit of attention you’d know that besides the “approximately” 500 Tons of yellow cake, there were 1.8 tons of enriched uranium besides the HEU obtained from Russia and France.
All of which lends exactly zero credibility to your claim that Iraq bought its first 500 tons of yellow cake from Niger.

Again this obsession with me.
Dude, your woe is me schtick is getting tiresome.

I realize its your M.O. to try turning everything into a huge overly emotional confrontation
Am I? Refresh my memory, who is the only one of the two of us to have brought up emotionality in this thread? Who is the only one of the two of us to have been taking jabs personally in this thread? Who is the only one of the two of us to have played the victim card more than once in this thread? I'll give you a hint, his user name isn't Nightwish. You do the math.

Radar Chief

12-11-2007, 01:33 PM

Projecting again, I see. The only one elevating opinion to fact is you. It is fact, not opinion, that you have not posted one single quote from Mayaki where he made the claim that he believed the purpose of the visit was to discuss yellow cake sales. It is fact, not opinion, that you have failed to link to even one primary source to support your opinion that this was his interpretation.

I’ve posted the quote already that you don’t want to believe a quote is on you.
"It is fact, not opinion" that you posted this opinion without even an attempt at backing it up.

Probably misquotes, based on the CIA report, rather than actual quotings of the real words of Mayaki.

Why I’m supposed to chase down your strawman I don’t know, but I am a bit surprised you’d think I’d fall for it.

It is fact, not opinion, that if he did indeed interpret the phrase as meaning that they wanted to discuss yellow cake sales, it does not automatically follow that he was correct in that assumption. It is fact, not opinion, that Mayaki is on record stating that he does not know precisely what they sought, and that uranium and yellow cake were never discussed.

“It is fact, not opinion” that is exactly what I posted. I never claimed Mr. Prime Minister Mayaki “knew” that they wanted to buy uranium.
So that begs the question, do you really know what you’re arguing or are you just arguing to hear your pea rattle? :hmmm:

It is fact, not opinion, that the majority of the yellow cake previously purchased by Iraq came from Portugal, not Niger (contrary to your now-debunked assertion that Iraq bought it's first 500 tons from Niger).

Not quite, it is true that they got more from other sources than I first knew, but it’s quite debatable, from what I’ve been reading, as to exactly where “the majority” came from. According to the IAEA, it was more along the lines of 270 tons of yellow cake from Niger, which would make it the majority.

It is fact, not opinion, that those sales occurred more than 25 years ago, not in recent times, and certainly not contemporary to the 1999 meeting with the Iraqi delegation. None of these are opinion, these are all facts.

“It is fact, not opinion” that you can’t find one quote from me claiming this wasn’t before GWI. But I see that won’t stop you from trying to spin it that way. ROFL

Dude, your woe is me schtick is getting tiresome.

:LOL: Really? My pointing out your overly emotional responses and quips about my age is “woe is me”? ROFL
Well, I guess when you’re never responsible for what you post….

Am I? Refresh my memory, who is the only one of the two of us to have brought up emotionality in this thread? Who is the only one of the two of us to have been taking jabs personally in this thread?

ROFL

Are you familiar with the words "pot" and "kettle?" You should know how hilarious it is when the reigning king of deflection accuses others of his own favorite tactic.

Are we getting a bit thin-skinned in our old age?

Oops. ROFL

Who is the only one of the two of us to have played the victim card more than once in this thread? I'll give you a hint, his user name isn't Nightwish. You do the math.

“Victim card”? For pointing out your apparent obsession with me instead of just addressing points with facts? ROFL
And what is your post if not an overly emotional diatribe? You even prefaced it with a weak “I know you are but what am I” statement. LMAO
I’d ask you to post less like a chick and discuss events rationally, but we both know that’s not going to happen so I won’t bother. ;)

Nightwish

12-11-2007, 02:26 PM

I’ve posted the quote already that you don’t want to believe a quote is on you. No, you didn't. You didn't post a quote from Mayaki. You posted an excerpt from an article wherein the author of the article alleged that Mayaki subscribed to that interpretation. But even the author of the article you linked to did not provide a quote. I asked you for a primary source. Do you know what a primary source is?Why I’m supposed to chase down your strawman I don’t know, but I am a bit surprised you’d think I’d fall for it.Huh? I didn't ask you to do anything in that comment. “It is fact, not opinion” that is exactly what I posted. I never claimed Mr. Prime Minister Mayaki “knew” that they wanted to buy uranium. So that begs the question, do you really know what you’re arguing or are you just arguing to hear your pea rattle? :hmmm:I know full well what I'm arguing. I'm just not sure that you know what you're arguing. You're the one trying to make an argument from what might have been one man's opinion, but definitely was not more than one man's opinion. Honestly, I think you're just trying to stir shit, as per your usual M.O.Not quite, it is true that they got more from other sources than I first knew, but it’s quite debatable, from what I’ve been reading, as to exactly where “the majority” came from. According to the IAEA, it was more along the lines of 270 tons of yellow cake from Niger, which would make it the majority.Nope, it wouldn't make it the majority, that still goes to Portugal.

From Portugal, they recieved a total of 286,446 kg of yellow cake, which converts into 315.75 short tons, or 286.446 metric tons, which is 51% of the total from just those two countries, not including Italy and Brazil. From Niger, they received a total of 276,844 kg of yellow cake, which converts into 305.17 short tons, or 276.844 metric tons. Either way, Portugal was the majority supplier. “It is fact, not opinion” that you can’t find one quote from me claiming this wasn’t before GWI. But I see that won’t stop you from trying to spin it that way. ROFLOkay, I'll give you that one, you didn't say it wasn't before GWI. But the alternative, of course, is that you're really stretching when you have to go back 25 years to find something to try to support pat's faith in the Butler Report that the Niger claim was "well founded." That's right there in the same family as the "We know he had wmd's in 1980, so he must have still had them in 2003" argument.Really? My pointing out your overly emotional responses and quips about my age is “woe is me”?Feel free to post a quote from me where you feel I took something personally. Conversely, it seems every time I take a playful jab at you, you get up in arms about it, developing some complex as if I'm persecuting you. I can post quite a few examples.Oops. ROFLWas that the best you've got? Accusing me of getting all emotional because I made fun of you for taking things personally? Really, that's pretty sad!And what is your post if not an overly emotional diatribe?Oh, I dunno, maybe an attempt to get you to man up and actually address the argument rather than running away from it and crying that you're being persecuted? C'mon, man, grow a pair, already! Either post a quote from Mayaki claiming that he subsribed to that interpretation, or post a quote from a primary source where the author was eyewitness to Mayaki making a comment to that effect, or admit you came to the table empty-handed. If you can post one of the above, I'll happily cede your position. I'll happily cede it, because it won't lend one iota of additional support to the findings of the Butler Report, nor undermine the doubts our intelligence community and others have expressed with the report's findings. One man saying, "Well, yeah, they might've wanted that" simply doesn't help you much.

irishjayhawk

12-11-2007, 02:36 PM

I don't think the NIE report is flawless or all the groundbreaking. I just have never been interested in whether or not Iran goes nuclear. Sounds more like a problem for Israel to worry about to me. Our national defense budget should go to defending our borders and our coasts. We have to be insane to think we can afford to let any and everybody just walk across our border as they please, then turn around and worry about some third world country on the complete opposite side of the planet with no ability to launch an ICBM.

QFT

Well done.

I am curious as to your opinion on Israel. Should we continue to help them or back them or whatever it is we do now?

Radar Chief

12-11-2007, 02:56 PM

No, you didn't. You didn't post a quote from Mayaki. You posted an excerpt from an article wherein the author of the article alleged that Mayaki subscribed to that interpretation. But even the author of the article you linked to did not provide a quote. I asked you for a primary source. Do you know what a primary source is?Huh?

Yes.

I didn't ask you to do anything in that comment.

It is fact, not opinion, that you have failed to link to even one primary source to support your opinion that this was his interpretation.

How quickly you forget what you posted. :hmmm:

I know full well what I'm arguing. I'm just not sure that you know what you're arguing.

Then why do you keep misrepresenting what I posted? Or is it less a misrepresentation and more of a comprehension problem?

You're the one trying to make an argument from what might have been one man's opinion, but definitely was not more than one man's opinion.

:LOL: Please quote where I’ve posted that it was more than one persons, Prime Minister Mayaki’s, opinion.

Honestly, I think you're just trying to stir shit, as per your usual M.O.

From Portugal, they recieved a total of 286,446 kg of yellow cake, which converts into 315.75 short tons, or 286.446 metric tons, which is 51% of the total from just those two countries, not including Italy and Brazil. From Niger, they received a total of 276,844 kg of yellow cake, which converts into 305.17 short tons, or 276.844 metric tons. Either way, Portugal was the majority supplier.

That depends on the source you want to believe, as I pointed out in that quote.

Okay, I'll give you that one, you didn't say it wasn't before GWI. But the alternative, of course, is that you're really stretching when you have to go back 25 years to find something to try to support pat's faith in the Butler Report that the Niger claim was "well founded."

Really? Is that the best you’ve got, falling back on an argument with someone else over something else? “Really, that’s pretty sad!” ROFL

Feel free to post a quote from me where you feel I took something personally. Conversely, it seems every time I take a playful jab at you, you get up in arms about it, developing some complex as if I'm persecuting you. I can post quite a few examples.

You go girl.

Was that the best you've got? Accusing me of getting all emotional because I made fun of you for taking things personally? Really, that's pretty sad!

At least you’re not getting all emotional about it. ROFL

Oh, I dunno, maybe an attempt to get you to man up and actually address the argument rather than running away from it and crying that you're being persecuted? C'mon, man, grow a pair, already!

I’m a freak’n profit.

What’s next, comments about the size of my junk?

You will now refer to me as NostraRadar. :thumb: I couldn’t have called that one closer if I had a Delorian and Flux Capacitor.

patteeu

12-11-2007, 03:21 PM

Possibly because nobody has yet posted an actual quote for him to deny.

More likely because there is no such quote.

patteeu

12-11-2007, 03:28 PM

I've posted the relevant fact that the reports that Mayaki interpreted the phrase to mean "yellowcake sales" derive from a CIA analysis, not from from any recorded quotes from the man himself. I'm not disputing that he might have interpreted it that way, I'm just pointing that you've got a long way to go to prove that he did interpret it that way, and that if he interpreted it that way, that his interpretation was accurate.

Let's assume you're right for the sake of argument.

On the one hand, we have a CIA analysis and on the other hand we have nothing disputing it. Yet somehow you come to the conclusion that it must be wrong because we can't independently verify the CIA analysis? From that you extrapolate that the British must be wrong in their Niger claims. And from that and the fact that the British fail to admit their assumed error you extrapolate that the CIA is more reliable than British intelligence in the matters discussed in the recent NIE that we similarly can't verify independently?

That's a pretty convoluted thought process right there.

patteeu

12-11-2007, 03:33 PM

Nightwish, the recent NIE is just CIA analysis. When are you going to post a quote from a primary source that verifies this analysis? Shouldn't we assume it's false until you've accomplished this feat since all our previous analysis and the contemporary analysis of both the British and the Israelis was in conflict with this recent assessment? :rolleyes:

Nightwish

12-11-2007, 03:45 PM

Yes. Then why haven't you posted one?How quickly you forget what you posted. :hmmm:I know what I posted. I asked you to post a primary source. You haven't done so. And in that particular comment, I didn't ask you for anything, I simply dismissed your assertion that you had seen several reports that quoted him saying that. An article written by a journalist, referring back to a CIA analysis, based on materials turned over to them by Joseph Wilson, which do not directly quote Mayaki, is a long way from being a primary source. You seeing a news report where a reporter is reciting an excerpt from the CIA analysis is not a primary source. The actual text of the report from Joseph Wilson, or an actual transcript or recording of his conversations with Mayaki, those would be primary sources.Then why do you keep misrepresenting what I posted? Or is it less a misrepresentation and more of a comprehension problem?Keep? The only thing I misrepresented was that you were arguing that Iraq had recently bought 500 tons of uranium from Niger. I hadn't realized that you were actually making an even greater stretch.:LOL: Please quote where I’ve posted that it was more than one persons, Prime Minister Mayaki’s, opinion.Speaking of comprehension problems. The "more than" was meant to modify "opinion," not the number of men.I’m just playing your petty little game. Doesn’t surprise me you have troubles handling it.Oh, I can handle anything you can dish out. I'm just pointing out that stirring the shit, trying to belittle not only the opposing arguments but also those making them, rather than attempting substantive arguments of your own, is a demonstrable pattern with you. At least two posters, one recently, one in the past, have PM'd me that they've put you on iggy for that very reason. I personally won't put you on iggy, because quite frankly, I'm having a blast at your expense, and it's made even funnier because you don't recognize it! That depends on the source you want to believe, as I pointed out in that quote.No, it doesn't depend on the source you want to believe. Both sources show that Portugal is the majority supplier. They only differ on the degree. One source shows Portugal supplying 55%, the other (the one you linked to) shows Portugal supplying 51%. 51% is still a majority. You need to check your math.Really? Is that the best you’ve got, falling back on an argument with someone else over something else? “Really, that’s pretty sad!” ROFLSpeaking of weak "I know you are, but what am I" moments. You do realize, don't you, that this little sidebar of ours started when you interjected yourself into my discussion with patteeu ... about this topic.At least you’re not getting all emotional about it. ROFL Oh, I'm experiencing emotions, alright. Just not the ones you're implying. A perverse joy is usually the desired result of making fun of someone, and you're delivering in spades! Appreciate it.I’m a freak’n profit.You're a profit (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/profit), huh? Good boy!

Nightwish

12-11-2007, 04:01 PM

Let's assume you're right for the sake of argument.
That would be a good assumption.

On the one hand, we have a CIA analysis and on the other hand we have nothing disputing it. Yet somehow you come to the conclusion that it must be wrong because we can't independently verify the CIA analysis?
I haven't said that it's wrong. I'm just having fun poking RC and making him squeal. I don't doubt that Mayaki may very well have thought that. The opinion of a man who is on record admitting that he doesn't actually know what they were seeking doesn't actually do much to support the Butler Report's assessment that the Niger claim was "well-founded." Remember, they didn't claim that it was the belief that Mayaki thought they might be seeking uranium that was "well-founded." It was the claim that they were seeking uranium that they say was "well-founded." Given the fact that Niger didn't even control its own uranium exports at that time, and given that the Butler Commission did not include anyone from the actual British intelligence community (the closest they had was two former members of their equivalent of our own Senate Intelligence Committee, which is not an intelligence gathering service), and given the scope of intelligence that was not reviewed by the Butler Commission, then I would have to conclude that the skepticism expressed by our own intelligence community and others about the Butler Report's findings is "well-founded."

From that you extrapolate that the British must be wrong in their Niger claims.
I didn't say they must be wrong. I said that what they have come forward with proved to be fraudulent, that what additional information that they had shared with our intelligence community was dismissed by our intelligence community as not credible, and that they have been stubborn in their refusal to share any further information that they allege they possess, despite their agreement to share all such intelligence with our own intelligence services, leads me to conclude that they are being less than truthful about what they actually have, and less than accurate in their findings.

And from that and the fact that the British fail to admit their assumed error you extrapolate that the CIA is more reliable than British intelligence in the matters discussed in the recent NIE that we similarly can't verify independently?
I haven't said anything about the current NIE, either for it or against it.

Radar Chief

12-11-2007, 04:17 PM

Then why haven't you posted one?

Why I’m supposed to chase down your strawman I don’t know, but I am a bit surprised you’d think I’d fall for it.

I know what I posted. I asked you to post a primary source.

Then why did you post this?

I didn't ask you to do anything in that comment.

Having troubles keeping your spin straight? :hmmm:

Keep?

I didn’t stutter. See above for perfect example.

Speaking of comprehension problems. The "more than" was meant to modify "opinion," not the number of men.

Doesn’t change a word I posted. But whatever helps you get by.

Oh, I can handle anything you can dish out. I'm just pointing out that stirring the shit, trying to belittle not only the opposing arguments but also those making them, rather than attempting substantive arguments of your own, is a demonstrable pattern with you. At least two posters, one recently, one in the past, have PM'd me that they've put you on iggy for that very reason. I personally won't put you on iggy, because quite frankly, I'm having a blast at your expense, and it's made even funnier because you don't recognize it!

:LOL: The ole, “you should hear what other people are saying about you” trick.
Aside from the fact that I could care less what Taco and BEP say, my condolences on your inability to progress beyond grade school playground gossip. ROFL
Way to prove how above it you are. :thumb:

Speaking of weak "I know you are, but what am I" moments. You do realize, don't you, that this little sidebar of ours started when you interjected yourself into my discussion with patteeu ... about this topic.

:spock: You made an inaccurate reference. I corrected it and you’ve yet to stop flipping out over my insolence for daring to question your superiority. How you even get to that quaint little reach from anything I’ve posted is a bit of a comical mystery.

Oh, I'm experiencing emotions, alright. Just not the ones you're implying. A perverse joy is usually the desired result of making fun of someone, and you're delivering in spades! Appreciate it.

Right. That’s why you reached for teh penis, and the whole grade school gossip thing, because you’re above the pettiness of it all.
The funniest part is you don’t even seem to recognize I’ve been poking you with sticks just to watch you squeal most of this time. Dance, monkey dance. LMAO

I didn’t stutter. See above for perfect example.
Obviously, you're a tad confused (and you've probably succeeded in confusing the heck out of any readers who are trying to follow along), so I'll help you out by pasting the sequence of posts to which the above quoted lines refer. Here is the timeline:

Post 29:
Radar Chief: I’ve seen Mayaki quoted several times saying exactly what I just posted to you.

Post 30:
Nightwish: Probably misquotes, based on the CIA report, rather than actual quotings of the real words of Mayaki. Happens all the time.

Post 56 (response to the above comment quoted from Post 21):
Radar Chief: Why I’m supposed to chase down your strawman I don’t know, but I am a bit surprised you’d think I’d fall for it.
As you can see, your response in Post 56 implied that the quoted portion of Post 30 to which you were actually responding was somehow asking you to track something down. Clearly it wasn't, it was merely a dismissal of your comment from Post 29.

Now, later in Post 29 you also made this comment:

Ah, that’s the problem, I didn’t post that. I posted that Mayaki assumed they wanted to talk about uranium not that they had.

To which, I responded:

If you can show a primary source that directly quotes Mayaki saying that, I'll reassess my opinion that point

As you can see, I did ask you to provide a primary source in that part of post 30, but not in the part you quoted, implying that that comment somehow represented a request of some kind. On the other hand, if you would prefer to construe that comment as a challenge to you to post some of these instances where you allege you've seen Mayaki quoted saying exactly that, then that's fine. I'll even allow that when you made your quip about chasing down strawmen, that you meant to quote the other part, rather than the part you quoted. But to the part you quoted, your response made no sense.

Doesn’t change a word I posted.
Except that your response, again, made no sense in light of what was really meant.

Aside from the fact that I could care less what Taco and BEP say, my condolences on your inability to progress beyond grade school playground gossip.
The fact that you suspect who the posters were tells me that you care more than you let on.

You made an inaccurate reference.
Did I? I said you had to fall back on dealings that happened 25 years ago to support patteeu's argument. Unless you just thought it was a "cool fact" to pop off out of nowhere and for no particular reason, and it was only by coincidence that it happened to coincide, both in terms of topic and timing, with an aspect of the discussion I was having with patteeu. What part was inaccurate?

I corrected it and you’ve yet to stop flipping out over my insolence for daring to question your superiority.
Flipping out, is that what you call it? If that's what floats your boat.

Right. That’s why you reached for teh penis, and the whole grade school gossip thing, because you’re above the pettiness of it all.
Who said I was above the pettiness? If I was above it, I would have put you on ignore a long, long time ago.

The funniest part is you don’t even seem to recognize I’ve been poking you with sticks just to watch you squeal most of this time. Dance, monkey dance. LMAO
Ah yes, there's your old "I know you are but what am I." Kind of loses its luster when you have to be the return man, doesn't it?

I got your “boy” dangling.
Proof yet again how detached you are. Impressive. ROFL
Whew, boy, this thread has officially jumped the shark.

clemensol

12-11-2007, 07:23 PM

This wouldn't surprise me at all. After all, the CIA is stunningly incompetent and has a long history of being laughably pathetic in their estimates. Not that it really matters to me though, Iran wouldn't pose any threat to the world even if they did have nuclear weapons.

Radar Chief

12-12-2007, 07:52 AM

I haven't said that it's wrong. I'm just having fun poking RC and making him squeal. I don't doubt that Mayaki may very well have thought that.

Ah, so you admit that you know what I’m talking about and probably agree but are arguing to be an asshole. Thanks. I knew that but thanks for putting it in writing.

Radar Chief

12-12-2007, 07:58 AM

Ah yes, there's your old "I know you are but what am I." Kind of loses its luster when you have to be the return man, doesn't it?

I’m sure you thought you’d steal my thunder with a preemptive strike. Seeing as how you’ve already claimed I started this little sidetrack, I don’t know how you think this claim of toying with me is going to get any traction. Doesn’t surprise me you’d try though.

Whew, boy, this thread has officially jumped the shark.

Had I displayed the mindless bickering you’ve shown on this topic, I’d want out of it too. :thumb:

stevieray

12-12-2007, 08:02 AM

I’m sure you thought you’d steal my thunder with a preemptive strike. Seeing as how you’ve already claimed I started this little sidetrack, I don’t know how you think this claim of toying with me is going to get any traction. Doesn’t surprise me you’d try though.

Had I displayed the mindless bickering you’ve shown on this topic, I’d want out of it too. :thumb:

...but...but two posters have put you on ignore...

..the horror... ROFL

BucEyedPea

12-12-2007, 08:06 AM

This wouldn't surprise me at all. After all, the CIA is stunningly incompetent and has a long history of being laughably pathetic in their estimates. Not that it really matters to me though, Iran wouldn't pose any threat to the world even if they did have nuclear weapons.
While this is true of the CIA, one can't forget that some of this is due to presidents using it to bend it to it's will. They're not all incompetent. Michael Scheuer, Ray McGovern and Phillip Giraldi were there under Bush before going to Iraq and they refused to participate in the charade that Tenet willingly participated in. It's corruption that has caused some of this. Anyhow, these whistleblowers were correct about Iraq. As was Scott Ritter, a former Marine involved in the inspection process. They all have said the same about Iran too.

Let's not forget that this report was the work of what 16 agencies or about that too. So why is just the CIA being called out? We're witnessing logic in suspended animation here.

patteeu

12-12-2007, 08:13 AM

I haven't said that it's wrong. I'm just having fun poking RC and making him squeal.

No, you are blathering on and on, dodging from one nonsensical point to the next, each time you feel the sand shift beneath your feet.

I don't doubt that Mayaki may very well have thought that.

It's good to see that you admit that Radar Chief's assessment has been right from the beginning. It's hard to understand why you'd go to such lengths to muddy the water with idiotic demands for "primary sources" that aren't available to either side on any of these issues.

The opinion of a man who is on record admitting that he doesn't actually know what they were seeking doesn't actually do much to support the Butler Report's assessment that the Niger claim was "well-founded." Remember, they didn't claim that it was the belief that Mayaki thought they might be seeking uranium that was "well-founded." It was the claim that they were seeking uranium that they say was "well-founded." Given the fact that Niger didn't even control its own uranium exports at that time, and given that the Butler Commission did not include anyone from the actual British intelligence community (the closest they had was two former members of their equivalent of our own Senate Intelligence Committee, which is not an intelligence gathering service), and given the scope of intelligence that was not reviewed by the Butler Commission, then I would have to conclude that the skepticism expressed by our own intelligence community and others about the Butler Report's findings is "well-founded."

You're "will to believe" is not evidence that can support your conclusion. After all of these posts, you've offered absolutely NOTHING substantial in your rejection of either the Butler commission's conclusion regarding the Niger uranium intelligence assessment nor the Mayaki statement (which is separate from the Butler commission issue). You've certainly offered nothing close to the "primary sources" that you demand from Radar Chief.

I didn't say they must be wrong. I said that what they have come forward with proved to be fraudulent, that what additional information that they had shared with our intelligence community was dismissed by our intelligence community as not credible, and that they have been stubborn in their refusal to share any further information that they allege they possess, despite their agreement to share all such intelligence with our own intelligence services, leads me to conclude that they are being less than truthful about what they actually have, and less than accurate in their findings.

Neither you nor I know of anything that the British have come forward with that has proved to be fraudulent in relation to this issue. The British weren't the source of the forged documents.

I haven't said anything about the current NIE, either for it or against it.

This is a thread about the current NIE. The British are skeptical of it. You are skeptical of their position relative to the position of the CIA which is exactly what I said.

-----------------------------

I'm done going back and forth, paragraph by paragraph on this issue given your inability to stake out a reasonable and coherent position and to stick with it. If you want to state your overall, stand-alone position on the thread topic, I may find it worthy of a response, but only if it amounts to something more than "I don't believe the British because I don't want to" which is all I've been able to distill out of your blather thusfar.

Radar Chief

12-12-2007, 08:16 AM

...but...but two posters have put you on ignore...

..the horror... ROFL

:LOL: I know. I get along very well with the vast majority of people here, that a couple of the more virulent demagogues have me on iggy says a lot more about them than me.

patteeu

12-12-2007, 08:20 AM

Ah, so you admit that you know what I’m talking about and probably agree but are arguing to be an asshole. Thanks. I knew that but thanks for putting it in writing.

Bingo. He's not worth the time we waste on him. All this time and it turns out he doesn't have a "surprise witness" up his sleeve to show where anyone (you, me, British intelligence, the Butler commission, etc.) is wrong about anything. His whole point seems to be that since we can't provide beyond-a-reasonable-doubt levels of proof for a particular assertion, there is no justification for making the assertion. Pretty weak kung fu, if you ask me.

Radar Chief

12-12-2007, 08:23 AM

It's good to see that you admit that Radar Chief's assessment has been right from the beginning. It's hard to understand why you'd go to such lengths to muddy the water with idiotic demands for "primary sources" that aren't available to either side on any of these issues.

:shrug: It’s what she does. Goes crazy then personal when she can’t find anything substantive to back up her claimed opinion.
That’s what made her reach for my junk so predictable.
Kind of like Goodwin’s Law, except this time it's Nightwish’s Law. The longer you’re in a conversation with her the more likely it is she’ll try to bring your crotch into the conversation. ROFL

patteeu

12-12-2007, 08:58 AM

While this is true of the CIA, one can't forget that some of this is due to presidents using it to bend it to it's will. They're not all incompetent. Michael Scheuer, Ray McGovern and Phillip Giraldi were there under Bush before going to Iraq and they refused to participate in the charade that Tenet willingly participated in. It's corruption that has caused some of this. Anyhow, these whistleblowers were correct about Iraq. As was Scott Ritter, a former Marine involved in the inspection process. They all have said the same about Iran too.

Translation: Let's not forget that when the CIA says things I don't agree with they are bending to the will of a President I don't like and that the agents who disagree with that President and say what I want to hear are straight arrows speaking truth to power.

FYI, Michael Scheuer didn't make some principled stand against Tenet and Bush, refusing to participate in a "charade" as you suggest. Here is an interesting account of Michael Scheuer's ignominious demise (as head of Alec Station) from a book called The Looming Tower:

Richard Clarke and George Tenet rejected Scheuer's idea for an immediate cruise missile strike of the governor's mansion in Kandahar, certain that bin Laden would be there. The military also objected because at least 300 people might die and a nearby mosque would be damaged. And, the CIA couldn't verify 100% that bin Laden was there.

"Scheuer sent out a series of wounded, recriminating e-mails. Talk in the hallways of the agency suggested that he had suffered a breakdown. that his obsession with bin Laden had gotten the best of him. In the meantime, he blew up at a senior FBI manager in Alec Station, which elicited an angry call from Director Freeh to Tenet. In May, Scheuer was DISMISSED as the head of Alec. "You're burned out," his boss told him.

"He was expected to retire and accept the intelligence medal that had been struck for him. "Stick it in your ass," said Scheuer. He reported at his usual dizzying time on Monday morning and occupied a desk in the library. He remained there month after month, with no duties, waiting for the agency to come to him when it was ready to kill, not to dither over a few dead princes."

This happened in 1999, before George W Bush was even elected. After the events of 9/11, Scheuer became a "special advisor" to the bin Laden unit, but he never regained his former position. He left the agency months after the US invasion of Iraq, but he *never* had any responsibility for CIA intelligence on Iraq.

Let's not forget that this report was the work of what 16 intel agencies or about that too. So why is just the CIA being called out. Where witnessing logic in suspended animation here.

You're right. It should be the ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) that we're calling out. Old habit.

go bo

12-14-2007, 01:07 AM

...but...but two posters have put you on ignore...

..the horror... ROFLhow come i don't get to have peeps put me on ignore?

i feel sighted... :(

Radar Chief

12-14-2007, 08:13 AM

how come i don't get to have peeps put me on ignore?

i feel sighted... :(

I’m glad you’re seeing well. They say sight is the first thing to go in our old age. ;)

patteeu

12-14-2007, 09:11 AM

I’m glad you’re seeing well. They say sight is the first thing to go in our old age. ;)

:LOL:

go bo

12-14-2007, 01:14 PM

What? The British don't totally agree with American intelligience on Iran? When American intelligience was so sure Saddam had WMD?

Too funny.

BTW I'd like someone to post some proof that Bush is willing to open up a war with Iran before he leaves office.you want proof?

how 'bout a psychic reading the future?

or maby ron paul will haunt you in your dreams...

besides, willing and actually doing it are two different things...

i don't think the u.s. military is capable of more than some air strikes and a brief incursion into iran with special forces...

the army is stretched way too thin as it is...

my projection is that there will be no full scale war with iran under the bush administration...

besides, congress doesn't seem to be very supportive of the idea that we should attack iran...

go bo

12-14-2007, 01:39 PM

Obviously, you're a tad confused (and you've probably succeeded in confusing the heck out of any readers who are trying to follow along), so I'll help you out by pasting the sequence of posts to which the above quoted lines refer. Here is the timeline:

As you can see, your response in Post 56 implied that the quoted portion of Post 30 to which you were actually responding was somehow asking you to track something down. Clearly it wasn't, it was merely a dismissal of your comment from Post 29.

Now, later in Post 29 you also made this comment:

To which, I responded:

As you can see, I did ask you to provide a primary source in that part of post 30, but not in the part you quoted, implying that that comment somehow represented a request of some kind. On the other hand, if you would prefer to construe that comment as a challenge to you to post some of these instances where you allege you've seen Mayaki quoted saying exactly that, then that's fine. I'll even allow that when you made your quip about chasing down strawmen, that you meant to quote the other part, rather than the part you quoted. But to the part you quoted, your response made no sense.

Except that your response, again, made no sense in light of what was really meant.

The fact that you suspect who the posters were tells me that you care more than you let on.

Did I? I said you had to fall back on dealings that happened 25 years ago to support patteeu's argument. Unless you just thought it was a "cool fact" to pop off out of nowhere and for no particular reason, and it was only by coincidence that it happened to coincide, both in terms of topic and timing, with an aspect of the discussion I was having with patteeu. What part was inaccurate?

Flipping out, is that what you call it? If that's what floats your boat.

Who said I was above the pettiness? If I was above it, I would have put you on ignore a long, long time ago.

Ah yes, there's your old "I know you are but what am I." Kind of loses its luster when you have to be the return man, doesn't it?

Whew, boy, this thread has officially jumped the shark.good heavens...